Wikiality talk:Admin Board
This page is meant for Admins to discuss Policy and other issues. Please check Wikiality:Admin Board at the bottom for current projects, and add your own ideas, too. * * Discuss Blocks * * Archive Comments Weird Stat of the Day If I am reading this chart correctly, then sometime in April, we apparently reached the one million words mark. --thisniss 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Jeebus! How do you read that chart? It looks like something a manic statistician wrote after smoking crack! Ace-o-aces 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC) To Do List, and Features Discussion Because we have such a wonderful crop of new users who seem intent on helping us (what's that about?), I thought it might be cool to have a page like this and our "Wikiality Weekends" where we could keep track of projects. So I revamped the Wikiality:ToDo page as a community-wide "to do list." I tried to indicate the difference between that page (a list for projects & stuff that needs doing) and "Current Events" - if they start getting confused we can get more specific. I love the fact that we can expand our "to do" beyond the admins. Wow. Also, a reminder (I put it on the "To Do," so I'm thinking about it): If you haven't yet, please add your thoughts to the Discussion about Features protocol. I feel the suggestion of locking Features for 30 days, and then creating an "archive" version before re-opening to editing is a good one, but we should try to get some consensus and move on this so that users don't feel like we're not paying attention. Thanks in advance for your attention to this question. --thisniss 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Interesting Question One of our citizens asked a very interesting question on the talkpage for the Main Page, I copied it below, does anyone know what to do about it?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 00:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC) To www or not to www I noticed that Wikiality is using both http://wikiality.com/Main_Page and http://www.wikiality.com/Main_Page as domain name. Furthermore, google are crawling both with the www and without the www as if they are two separate sites. This may be a disadvantage to us because Google give out duplication penalty for identical content being hosted on two "different" sites. (PS: A day will come when articles from The Truthiness Encyclopedia will rank higher than articles from The Free Encyclopedia!) -- Princess Ai 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC) :Are you sure this is disadvantageous to us in the long run? I thought that most internets sites did this because it helped in searching. (in fact, many big sites - like the above mentioned unmentionable encyclopedia - are listed in .com, .org, etc. versions as well) But I don't really know anything about how the Googles tubes work. I do know that when I do the Quantcast thing, whether I type the www. or not, I get the same "Wikiality.com" stats. (oh, and on another note, we are now the #7 listing on the Google under "truthiness;" #1 and #2 under "Wikiality" - an improvement, as we weren't always in the top ten for either of these terms, right?) ::Speaking of the Google, I just found this (my vanity lead me to google "Virginality"): someone's blog. Rock on!!! See, I felt I was an expert on virginality, and this clearly proves that I was right. (I am laughing so hard, it hurts) --thisniss 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC) New Bureaucrats User:Esteban Colberto and User:Thisniss have been promoted to bureaucrats! Congratulations, heroes!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Looks Who's Honoring Use Now! Check out Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals and scroll down to the third question!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Dictionary Update We are quickly approaching 1,000 dictionary entries !--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Stephanie Miller I wrote an email to Ms. Miller in the hopes she mention us.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 05:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Quantcast rankings MC Esteban™ pointed me toward our Quantcast rankings today, and I noticed that (as of this moment) we're coming in at about 113,000. The last time I looked, on 4/1/07, we were hovering around 135,000 or so. NoFactZone had us at 136,676 on March 8. I wonder what could have given us such a boost in the last few days? hmmmmm. --thisniss 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC) :The Baby Jesus?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Number of Articles I've been watching the number of articles we have and I estimate that we get about 100 in 3-4 days when TCR is airing new episodes.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Re-skin? I had an idea for a reskin, but am s-o-o busy to get to it right now, but I will include a sketch of it...soon...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Colbertopedia According to Wikia Central, the Colbertopedia wiki is up for "adoption." I wonder if we should propose that they just roll it into us, rather than waiting for someone to adopt it to try to develop it into a more thriving (competitor?) Colbert encyclopedia on Wikia. A quick check of their articles shows that a "friendly take-over" would not create much work for us. How do you all feel about this? Should we ask? Is is better to have many wikis devoted to the glorification of Stephen, or do we seek Stephen-wiki-world domination? I'm curious. --thisniss 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC) :They can join us peacefully, or we can invade, the choise is theirs entirely. We are the deciders!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC) LMFAO! y5YEkZ9i8Vk We need to get this guy to let us feature this on the front page!--MC Esteban 06:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC) :Hey, the guy says we can post it on the front page if we want. I was thinking we could temporarily put it in the spot where the Stephen pic is at the top. Let me know...--MC Esteban 07:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ::This is quite funny, what do we get if we give him front page?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) :::Street cred my friend. Or perhaps, more accurately, tube cred. --MC Esteban 07:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ::Okay, but let it be known we shall not become just another tubal extension of The YouTube--Colbert-centric clips only. Do you feel we should reskin to allow for it?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Would it ruin your enjoyment of the clip for me to point out that, technically speaking, americone dream is not gilato? Ace-o-aces 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Inter-Internets Promotion We need to get the word out about our site on other pages. Does anyone have any suggestions how we can best do this?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC) :It seems like the first place we would want to start would be the big Colbert sites. In my fantasy world, I would love to get us in that fancy links box on the front page of ColbertNation. That would be so rad. I don't know how much contact there has been with the other folks we link to, so some history would be helpful in figuring out a plan of approach. If you all even think it's worth our time. I don't know.--thisniss 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ::You could sign up at the colboards and hype the site. I do this every once in awhile. Also, I think we could consider partnering up with NoFactZone.net. They have been building an archive of episode guides over there and something like that would be extremely useful here as well. --MC Esteban 05:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) :::One of the newly minted mods at ColbertNation, User:Hobobob10 has graced us with his presence and has posted quite a bit on our Colbert Nation page, even getting a few others to come join him here! Of course, most of their posts have been bashing the trolls, but hey, it's a start. :::Personally, I have tried to send stuff to a few high profile dem sites, but very little from them.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC) GodTube Just in case anyone needs some inspiration, and hasn't seen it yet: The GodTube. It's the perfect holy matrimony of conservapedia and The YouTube. Have a blessed day!--thisniss 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC) :Pffft, they are woefully lacking in Homo Survivors.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ::Wired story where Kirk Cameron is in a GodTube vid where a Sonny Bono-looking guy uses a banana to disprove atheism. I mean, Kirk Cameron. --thisniss 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Featured Articles Procedures Discussion One of our users, Wskitche, had posted a request for the Featured Articles to be opened to editing on the Features Nomination page. I know that this has come up before, and I figured that it would be better to have to conversation somewhere other than on the voting page itself, so I created a Discussion page for people to weigh in on the "locking" question. Please go over and join this discussion. I feel some valid concerns have been raised, but I also believe it would be helpful to have an explanation of why the decision was made to lock these articles in the past (I can think of some good reasons to do so, including protection of their truthiful content, etc.). I'm sure we can figure out a compromise that will serve both the desire to protect the features and the desire to keep them current. So go, Discussion page|talk! thanks,--thisniss 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC) :Oops, forgot to post on this...please guide users wishing to make suggestions or to file complaints to the appropriate pages. Thanks!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ::Yes, for general suggestions I do. But since the talk page for the Features is actually the voting page, and since the person who wanted to "talk" about the Features protocol had logically posted on the "talk" page, and since this particular issue has been talked about across various pages (suggestions, main page talk, here, etc.), it made sense to me to make a specific, related, attached discussion page for the Features procedures there. General Suggestions and Complaints should, of course, still get routed through their proper pages.--thisniss 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC) We Can Change The Message We can change the message that pops onto the screen when someone alters your talkpage! Just click here and it is already blocked for sysops use ONLY! Hopefully, we can incorporate the almanac into it...Stephen Colbert Day is coming soon...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Featured Wikia Since I'm the baby of the admin family, I hope you'll all forgive me if I'm stupidly suggesting something that's already been tried / done before. But I was wondering if we should "celebrate" our passing the 5,000 article mark (we'll probably be at 5,500 by tomorrow) and our 7 1/2 month anniversary (yeah, I'm stretching) by nominating ourselves for Wikia:Featured Wikia. What do you all feel about this? --thisniss 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC) :We have been nominated, and we were featured...wikia has this bizzare rule that says you can't be featured twice in a year or something, losers...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ::Well, I figured we should have been, but I looked through their past Featured list and didn't find us. So what's that about? Maybe I just can't read.--thisniss 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC) :Post the link that you used to look for us...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Wikia:Recently featured Wikia - this is the link from the Feature Nomination page. I also checked Wikia:Category:Featured Wikia. :I stand corrected, we need to get on them...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ::Well, I was wrong about "tomorrow," but we did pass 5,500 today. :) Eat it, Dramatica!--thisniss 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The Words El Payo has succeeded in bluing all the red links for the words. Some of which may need a little more tweaking, so let's all get in there and give him a hand. Check for words that still need help, and this link for pages that need even more help! Thanks.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC) :Congrats and many, many thanks for your noble efforts, El Payo! --thisniss 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Dictionary As of this post, we have 821 words in our dictionary!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 08:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC) :I have a seperate php dictionary script I was thinking of using on either a new site or on a subdomain of wikiality.com for colbertisms. --uno 07:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Believe it or not... I have tickets to The Colbert Report April 9, 10 and 12th. hah. --uno 02:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC) :LOL, it's a good thing they aren't charging you!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ::Wow. How did you manage that? But I'm going to the transfat capital for a podunk academic conference, which is obviously the height of cool. Jealous, anyone???--thisniss 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC) :::It's a trade secret. I'm jealous. I believe transfat is now banned in nyc. --uno 07:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Idea for Sound Advice We can do something similar to what chemical manufacturers use (Image:NFPAChart.gif) for labeling potnetially dangerous substances by using Image:NFPADiamondBlank.png in a "write-on" template (like Template:author). The four sections of the diamond can measure certain characteristics, like: # truthiness # factiness # ? # ? (anyone got any ideas for the other 2?) And of course, we can change the colors, one can be America's fourth color: green. We can use it to show people if their page meets certain levels, then it can be moved to be voted on, but not until then. Tell me what you guys think feel about it, or anything else we can add to make it work.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC) :I have started a new template called "advice" for this. Please adjust as needed.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ::I now have a temporary page for this idea, please add/change as you see fit.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC) :::I like the colors on the NFPA and the idea of having a health hazard and nuclear symbol for declaring pages dangerous. In any case, I'm not sure what to do in terms of using it. That is, when I clicked edit, how to update the template other than deleting it wasn't clear.--Pro-Lick 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ::You're not supposed to click on it. It's suppoed to work like one of those templates that you can "write-on". (like the valentines cards, or the fortune cookies on Confucius or creating a Stephen Colbert ice cream flavor, or election bumper stickers). ::The page was to clarify what we (admins) wanted to designate for each color of the diamond. ::The colors were chosen so that we could have red, white and blue, and the green was chosen, because it is the color of money (unlike yellow, which is the color of cowardice). Hope that helped.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC) :::I definitely like the idea of a "grading" scale, especially since it can simplify a lot of the feedback that needs to be given in a way that doesn't have to seem too personal (like "learn to spell," which is probably my most frequent critique). I made a few minor adjustments, which I explained on the talk page for the template. I think this will really help us give more feedback to more users more quickly. I'm going to try to use the word "more" at least one more time.--thisniss 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC) :Please check Wikiality:Sound Advice/Grading and adjust as needed, we need to get this started ASAP.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Next Weekend (March 24+25) One thing I was going to try was a weekend "get-together" thing, although I wonder how many people will be doing anything this weekend (spring break March 17+18). It seems everyone checks in on the weekend, maybe we can do some collaborative things then? Anyone have any ideas? Post them here.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC) :I wonder if anyone else wants to help me eliminate the missing Wørds? I've finished up the 2005 wørds and quarter 4 of 2006, but there are a lot of wørds still outstanding. --El Payo 04:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ::I added that to the "weekends" page above along with a note about adding missing guests too.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Today We Passed Encyclopedia Dramatica Officially, they could get a rush of pages and pass us again, but for now, we are ahead of them. Congratulations all!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC) :We are so close to 5k articles I can taste it! I think Stephen will be proud! --uno 04:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) ::Looks like we did it! Congratulations to everyone.--thisniss 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Kick ass!!! We're pretty damn far ahead now. Look out, uncyclopedia! --uno 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Unused Images Noticed there are a bunch of , I would suggest deletion, but it looks like a lot of them have potential to be useful. If we're gunna leave them there, maybe we should point users to them, to avoid uploading any duplicates.--Lewser 18:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :There's also a way to search images only that would probably be more useful for users looking for an image to use. The search box doesn't do images by default and it's not real easy (at least not in the freem sense) to figure out how to search for an image.--Pro-Lick 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Just Checking in Hey, I've gotta get me one of those Wikiality emails that are all the rage these days. And wow, looks like theres been a lot of changes on the admin side of things, guess I need to lay low for a couple days to catch up.--Lewser 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :I would also like a Wikiality.com email address. And a pony (I'm not sure who is in charge of livestock requisitions, but if you have to prioritize, I'd rather have the email than the Jesus Horse. For now). --thisniss 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::Sorry I need to get on top of this. Remind me tomorrow please. --uno 02:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) :::Any new news on this front? I don't want to bug you, just wondering. Thanks!--thisniss 14:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Potentially Confusing Usernames? I started wondering after I saw a new user had taken the name User:Wikiality whether there might be some usernames that could be potentially confusing, problematic, etc. This is not about the particular user, who does not seem to have done anything much as yet. This is more a question of whether there are some usernames that we might consider "inappropriate," off-limits, etc. I really don't want to be over-zealous here, but I did want to at least ask the question. Obviously we would expect our users to be sophisticated enough to separate a username from the person behind it, but this is not always as clear as it seems. I mean, I'm fairly intelligent (I even have a verifiable Master's Degree - not in Science), and if I saw something posted here on a public discussion with the username "Wikiality" or User:Wikiality.com (which I just created) attached to it, I might question whether this was an official voice of "the" Wikiality.com. So, I'm wondering if others see this as problematic, or if I'm just worrying too much. I've had a bit of conversation with a couple of you about this, but I feel this is something that we probably should go ahead and work through. At any rate, I have taken the "precaution" of registering User:Wikiality.com. This actually happened as an accident: I was testing the possibility of taking this as a username. Well, it turns out I could use it, so I did - not completely intentionally (I hit "send," and it "sent"). But probably better me than someone else. :) I also decided to go ahead and "squat" on a couple more usernames that I thought might be iffy. I don't plan on doing anything with these except holding them in reserve for us, and will happily surrender/delete/retire them or whatever. If uno or others want the account names and passwords, email me via my userpage (I'm not posting all that info here for obvious reasons). I'm not trying to make an issue of something that isn't one; just trying to suspend one potential avenue for mischief making while we give some collective thought to this question. Thanks, --thisniss 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) TOO MANY RANDOM PAGES! AGGHH!!! I have created a new template ("rewrite") for pages about prominent people or events, or places, etc. that contain too much randomness! They fall into a sub-category of Un-Colbert Content called Pages That Need to be Completely Rewritten. For instance, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford were tagged as too random long ago, but haven't been Colbertized. I know no one has the time to work on any of them, but I created the tag/category, etc for the...off chance that one day...one of us might just be able...please review it, and adjust as you see fit.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Featured Pages & Writing Don't know about anyone else, but I have an idea why we might not be getting too many featured noms: none of us are writing. No one has any examples of "featured-type pages" (even though there is a page) specifically how one is written, developed, etc. I say this, because when we were writing, more people wrote and voted. And now that we are so busy with other stuff, no one has the time to show the newbies hows it's done. I am going to try to post more stuff, the one page I am working on currently is called: The Department of Justice's Internal Controls Over Terrorism Reporting. But that isn't the only page I've have abandoned for Admin business. Maybe if we involve some of the newbies to join us in our projects, we can help them along? Anyone have any ideas?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC) :I have been trying to invite people to join projects, or pointing out pages that I think would be good "fits" for people based on their interests, pages they've worked on in the past, etc. I definitely feel what you are saying here. I haven't finished any of my major projects since becoming an admin. I am ashamed of how long I've left The American Family abandoned. But maybe the terrorists haven't won yet. As more users come, I do occassionally see an old page picked up and fleshed out.--thisniss 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Did You Know...? I can't find the list of future "Did you know"s any more (they were on the Main Page2 talk page, right?). Anyway, I know there was a list, but I thought it might be good to "cut line" and post something like a Did you know... "Stephen produced his own award-winning PowerPoint Documentary on Global warming?" Because of the Oscars timing, otherwise not. Just a thought before I go off to spend 8 more hours working on a powerpoint myself.... --thisniss 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC) :I was going to talk to you about this, when I saw the subject on your page already. Were you able to find the "hidden" list of "future "Did You Knows?". If not, I can "unhide" them.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ::Yes thank you. Am I in charge of changing those? Also, I was thinking we could rotate one spot for the currently airing episode, related to stuff like what El Payo works on. --Esteban Colberto 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) :Not sure who is in charge, it looks like you have plenty of stuff already. We can divide it up if it seems like too much (although no one is voting for any Features, I may have to mass post people). But the Main Page is sectioned off: I have been changing the "Most Of What You Need To Know" section. As MC, you would get the second section, "Features" and the top section...? You can take it if you want until you get overwhelmed.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think we can just split the responsibility on this. How often are we looking to roll them over?--Esteban Colberto 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC) :Not sure about that either. I have been valiantly (if I must say so myself) trying to keep the news and photos updated daily (except weekends) and that has meant I cannot write (which reminds me of the next subjext see above) but we are creating these rules and whatnot as we go. Thank you for moving this to the "community page" so everyone can jump in without causing too much of a glut on your own page.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) ::I've been trying to roll over the "Do You Knows" every 3-5 days or so. I feel it's fine to keep this fairly loose, like a "change the DYIs as necessary" policy. I don't mind taking informal responsibility for making sure it happens "often enough" for the time being, especially I'm not doing anything else to tend the Main Page. Then others can change them if they feel the need.--thisniss 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Main Page2 I "reskinned" our Main Page sandbox, please check it out and if the featured "word" feature is ready, adjust as needed, and post on the Main Main Page.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 05:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) :I have added some "future" "Did You Knows" to the talk page, so we won't get behind. Please add some of your own so we can stay ahead of this.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC) ::I "hid" the "Future Did You Knows" so they can be seen on the "edit" tab only.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 06:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Conservapedia and the 6,000 year old Jesus Horses People, after reading a few articles on conservapedia, we may jsut have to close up shop here. Reality seems to have overtaken satire. (They have at least cleaned up the page on relativity a bit.) The article on Unicorns is not to be missed. Ace-o-aces 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Because reason and facts gave Wikipedia a liberal bias, here comes Conservapedia to the rescue. Money quotes: Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian “C.E.” instead of “A.D.”, which Conservapedia uses. Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions. Viewed as a simple philosophical framework of “no god exists”, atheism can provide no logical basis for any moral standard. Some atheists reject normal social conventions and live their lives according to the rule that “anything goes”. Many feel this has led to a large rise in crime1, drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy,2 pedophilia3 and bestiality. (May be inaccessible for a while due to heavy traffic.) --El Payo 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC) :Well, I was wondering how they were going to counter us and Our Glorious Stephen and this allows them to do what we're doing with "their Daily Show". What a bunch of coattail riders. :Honestly though, I think they are trying to counter Congresspedia, not Wikip*dia so much. I wonder how many of their editors are paid? Maybe we should all sign-up? LOL--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ::So, I'm trying to take a look at it, by checking the google cache, and I found this, LOL--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) :::This whole thing is beautiful. 1/2 Hour News Hour, Conservapedophila; my gut is doing backflips! --Esteban Colberto 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Wow, the first article I visited. A true hero! We could practically just copy and paste this stuff over here. --Esteban Colberto 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) :We could also practically copy and paste our stuff over there, except that we'd have to torture our grammar more. And, of course, add more Jesus. Not that I'm tempted or anything... --thisniss 02:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) ::I already tried to sign up, and it won't let you sign up, it says you have to have permission to log in, but in order to request permission, you have to be logged in. Also, they scan your computer to see who you are before they let you on. I would like to know if anyone else has been able to log on, but of course, don't respond here, do so in email!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC) :::Well, it seems someone wrote an article about them over at Uncyclopedia!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ::::It seems this is run by some organization called the Eagle Forum. They run a University called the Eagle Forum University where they teach classes such as American History based on the site, and it has free Registration! Before you go saying I'm too facty, let it be known this info came to me in a fever dream. --Esteban Colberto 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC) :::::Check out Hiram Whickermeister III's contribs. He wrote the bit about vaccines and collateral damage and has been praised by one of the purveyors of Conservapedia for his "interesting entries." --Esteban Colberto 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC) :::Lady homosexuals are known as "[[lesbians]"] LOL--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC) :::Hiram on Nazis All Nazis are atheists. However, in fairness, it should be noted that not all atheists are necessarily Nazis (for example, some are Communists).--Esteban Colberto 04:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I may be taking some of you too seriously because I've been reading Wikipedia's mailing list where they actually thought it was a parody site, but, other than inspiration and free article writing for us, don't bother with the site. And don't link there. That will just make it more likely that aspiring idiots will find their way to it via a search engine. EagleForum is a fundie organization tied to other "pro-family" fundie organizations. Do you want naive MexiCanadians wandering across the Internets border and learning American history from them? Link to the Uncyclopedia article or even the Wikipedia article (if there is one). If you want fun editing conservative nonsense, edit the Wikipedia articles on EagleForum and the nuts running that asylum. Just remember that these are the people that actually voted for the greatest president - both times - and receive praise for their "education" and books from Coulter.--Pro-Lick 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, some logo entertainment: *cross country 1 *cross country 2 :I get your point, and I delinked mostly everything. However, I do find it ironic that you then linked to Conservapedia with the logos. --Esteban Colberto 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) ::I shortened my explanation too much. I'm not linking to them with keywords (the link name) that they and their promoters would be using. Those searching for cross country are not likely to see the images until the end of a very long list, as opposed to the first 10 results, and there's no danger of them becoming the feeling lucky page. To make what I'm recommending clearer: ::*Link to our own pages and factual articles that put them in perspective using common tags like Conservapedia or Conservative Encyclopedia or Conservative University or Christ College or Darwin's Lies. ::*Link to their pages using obscure or heavily used but unrelated words like Anti-fish U or Encyclopedia Neoconica.--Pro-Lick 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC) If anyone does happen to use any of this "material", please make sure its properly cited. Life imitating art. It's incredible. --uno 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Wikiality.com in the media... AGAIN!!! http://www.nofactzone.net/?p=935 Colbert rumour mutates into news reports (Subscription only - go to bugmenot.com for password) The Ottawa Citizen Published: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Newspapers in Canada and the United States — including the Citizen and The Globe and Mail — reported that Stephen Colbert was to host the Grammy Awards. Countless news and discussion websites were abuzz with speculation about how the sharp-tongued TV satirist would make the awards show more entertaining, or not. By the time the Grammy Awards were over Sunday, all those involved in the debate could agree on one thing: Colbert wasn’t there. The debate was sparked by a false report that began on the Internet and spread as only Internet buzz can spread. It’s not clear where the misinformation began, but yesterday some websites were fingering wikiality.com, a parody site of the online encyclopedia wikipedia.com, and named after a word created by none other than Stephen Colbert. All it takes is a few sites or blogs to treat such a report as truth, and soon enough it can make the jump to genuine news sites, says Christopher Waddell, associate director at Carleton University’s school of journalism. “A lot of the Internet is like that party game where you sit in a circle and whisper in someone’s ear, and you wait until it comes back around,” said Waddell. “Some of these ‘news sites’ … are essentially aggregators that are basically driven by algorithms rather than by people. They’re scouring the Internet, seeing how many times something appears, and once it appears a certain number of times they pop it up on their site.” :I didn't watch the Grammy Awards, but I feel like Stephen hosted them - and if enough of us believe that he did, then he must have. --El Payo 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ::It's just another example of the liberal media elite trying pass the buck, as it were. --uno 05:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC) User Awards I have been giving out "awards" for users who have achieved certain levels here on Wikiality.com (please adjust and add your own--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)): : So, should we give people balls for achieving a certain status? Also, I want to award something to people who vote an x number of times. Any suggestions? --Esteban Colberto 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ::The voting system was designed to prevent users who vote but don't contribute anything else (their votes are not counted) if we do award "voting" it must be done inconjunction with contributions too.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC) I would also like to know about (or work up some) protocols for the process of giving out user awards. The particular case that brought this to mind was User:GlennBecksATool, whom I believe deserves a nod for a number of recent truthy contributions. I feel that he is beyond the "Monkey In Training" stage, and wondered if he could be "awarded" with the "Editor Par Excellence" or "It-Getter" badges? How should I (or "someone") handle something like this? Should we route "awarding" suggestions through MC Esteban, or some more "public" discussion? Or can I just award a user for extra-truthy contributions on my own gut-judgment?--thisniss 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) ::I added Monkey into the chart, but it has been something I started handing out, just as Esteban has been handing out balls. I think for an "unofficial" award (for a user who you catch being good), you can just give them the award. But for something official (like Featured article, writer, image, etc), it has to go through the MC. ::I created the 2 categories you mentioned for people who can edit any page to truthiness' highest standards. And turn a page around, kinda like El did from day one. BUt, whatever you choose, make sure you post it into the chart, so we don't contradict anything you do.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC) :::**"Mrs. Colbert" question/thought: Are we going to use this same title for writers of "Wikiality.com Featured Word"s? It just occurred to me that if we do want to differentiate them, we could call the "Word" writers something like "Junior Miss Colbert"s. (or even "Junior Mrs. Colbert" - even weirder) ::::Well, I was awarding the WAWord badge to those who have written a Featured Word. Do we need a title as well? Also, re: the voting+contribs thing, sounds good. If we see a vote from a user without contribs, we will politely ask them to contribute first before voting, not that this seems to happen very often. ::Esteban has made a page for this: Wikiality:Awards--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Praise and constructive criticisms around the web. http://www.ttca.org/cruisenews/2006/12/show-your-truthiness-edit-wikialitycom.shtml Lots of great criticisms of the site as well as praise. http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=821&sc=5 Another mention of the greatness of our site. --uno 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Should we have a "Look Who's Honoring US" section now? --uno 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) :yes!--Esteban Colberto 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/16370487.htm A nice mention. --uno 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Truthiness banished! See http://www.lssu.edu/banished/ and the list itself at http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php --Splarka (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC) :Good. Whenever something is taboo, the kids go for it that much more--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 05:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) food pages I've noticed the various food pages are staring to look too uncylopediaish. We need to truthify them. Also, I believe this post constitutes both the first and second use of the word uncyclopediaish in the English language. Ace-o-aces 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Great link with a lot of cool info... Wiki How